Author Topic: SpaceX Section Realignment and Thread Housekeeping - Upcoming  (Read 16567 times)

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4339
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2578
  • Likes Given: 531

* Spacex Operations and infrastructure (all the stuff about factories, production, pads, ships, barges, and other facilities and assets. Including core tracking/moving - they are operational assets now)



+1 for the "Operations and Infrastructure" heading. Lots of existing threads would fit well under it, as Zardar said, and several previous commenters seem to have neglected this category.

Online Chris Bergin

Some good food for thought here! I am leaning towards an extra section to spread it out. Won't be starlink, obviously. Remember, new sections need to be able house at least 30-40 threads already in other sections. So apply that if you haven't already.

Online Chris Bergin

Working off suggestions and likes and my own personal opinion (counts for something ;D) I'm liking this. No need for a Starlink section (for now).

SpaceX General.
SpaceX Missions.
SpaceX Facilities and Fleets (from pads to Mr. Stevens)
SpaceX BFR - Earth to Deep Space (not enough for a SpaceX Mars standalone yet. BFR Earth to Earth and BFR Deep Space)
SpaceX Speculation (Jury is out on that. Could it become a New Physics Section style hotbed of nonsense? Although I do like it as a relief valve for the other sections. Maybe call it something other than "Speculation"?)
SpaceX Megathread (that'll fill up some more as we do the housekeeping and move some of the massive older threads).

Will work on the framework over the weekend and then the work will begin where we move threads across where required. When we do we'll have a lead thread in the section to post links to threads to be moved, so we can all help out.

But first, still time for thoughts.....
« Last Edit: 04/21/2018 11:04 am by Chris Bergin »

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 7482
  • Likes Given: 2500
-SpaceX Falcon Family and Merlin (I think that now that reusability for F9 and FH is established, the Reusability section is somewhat redundant, plus it currently contains a mix of F9 and BFR and other things).

I agree with the above and think it's missing from your proposal Chris. Without it, there are a number of reusability threads (such as fairing re-use, S2 use etc) that'll end up going back to General and I wonder if General then becomes too large/unbalanced? There are plenty of Falcon threads to warrant their own section. That may reduce General somewhat, but don't see that as a bad thing.

Obviously the key thing is that people can find threads and are clear about where to start new ones (so we don't end up with duplicates in different sections).

Edit to add: expanding that last point - one danger with 'Speculation' as a separate section is that is can be hard to get consensus on where normal discussion/debate ends and speculation begins! For exanple, quite a lot about BFR is inherently speculative currently, as it's early days and not much detailed info is known/released. So which BFR threads belong in a BFR section and which in speculation? I'm all for separate speculative threads, but not sure about separate section.
« Last Edit: 04/13/2018 01:46 pm by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline Semmel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1620
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1496
  • Likes Given: 3874
Working off suggestions and likes and my own personal opinion (counts for something ;D) I'm liking this. No need for a Starlink section (for now).

SpaceX General.
SpaceX Missions.
SpaceX Facilities and Fleets (from pads to Mr. Stevens)
SpaceX BFR - Earth to Deep Space (not enough for a SpaceX Mars standalone yet. BFR Earth to Earth and BFR Deep Space)
SpaceX Speculation (Jury is out on that. Could it become a New Physics Section style hotbed of nonsense? Although I do like it as a relief valve for the other sections. Maybe call it something other than "Speculation"?)
SpaceX Megathread (that'll fill up some more as we do the housekeeping and move some of the massive older threads).

Will work on the framework over the weekend and then the work will begin where we move threads across where required. When we do we'll have a lead thread in the section to post links to threads to be moved, so we can all help out.

But first, still time for thoughts.....


You could rename "SpaceX Speculation" with "SpaceX Brainstorm" if you like that term better. Has a slightly more practical and less dismissive connotation.

One question though, where should a F9-based discussion happen in this framework? Or Dragon?

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2911
  • Likes Given: 2249
-SpaceX Falcon Family and Merlin (I think that now that reusability for F9 and FH is established, the Reusability section is somewhat redundant, plus it currently contains a mix of F9 and BFR and other things).

I agree with the above and think it's missing from your proposal Chris. Without it, there are a number of reusability threads (such as fairing re-use, S2 use etc) that'll end up going back to General and I wonder if General then becomes too large/unbalanced? There are plenty of Falcon threads to warrant their own section. That may reduce General somewhat, but don't see that as a bad thing.
Exactly. One of the values of this site is that it leads itself to greater comprehension on an area.

(It's also why the "General" becomes a bit useless. After a while, all the categories have too much ambiguity and that takes away from the value of the site, and you don't want to look at them because you know they'll be too much meandering posts to dig through.)

The best of these have always been the Missions section. (ULA and Ariane Group could also use a Missions section.)

Quote
Obviously the key thing is that people can find threads and are clear about where to start new ones (so we don't end up with duplicates in different sections).
Dilutes the content.

Quote
Edit to add: expanding that last point - one danger with 'Speculation' as a separate section is that is can be hard to get consensus on where normal discussion/debate ends and speculation begins! For exanple, quite a lot about BFR is inherently speculative currently, as it's early days and not much detailed info is known/released. So which BFR threads belong in a BFR section and which in speculation? I'm all for separate speculative threads, but not sure about separate section.

I called it "Futures and Option". In large companies you have corporate strategy groups that posit different roadmaps (futures) to drive the firm to, or "forks in the road" (options) that are different means to get to the same end. (Both SX and BO plan like this, examples are in stage recovery, Dragon solar panel deployment, and how FH evolved, as well as changes in New Glenn).

In mathematics we have a technique called variation of parameters, and in orbital mechanics and physics the virial theorem allow you to arrive at roughly the same goal/point (in a symplectic geometry) through many means. Often the best ideas here are simply different ways in like kind to the same end. They also tend to have less nonsense because the knowledge base self organizes, reducing the burden on the mods.

However arranged/named, it would be nice if this trend were maintained, as it moves away from "reddit chaos" common elsewhere, but lesser here.

add:
A radical suggestion of having a Missions top level section, with an entry for each provider(or country) might be the strongest position, then have the rest arranged as otherwise. Since most of the activity would be centered there, it would amplify the sites metrics as well as draw in the greatest cross section of space interest on the Internet.

(The biggest thrill for me with this has always been the "welcome to the mission" kick-off. Can remember each of them, in detail. And has always brought me back after many long times away. Always been/will be about the missions, also the lens of other professional exploits chosen.)
« Last Edit: 04/15/2018 06:23 pm by Space Ghost 1962 »

I too vote against the speculation section, and to use clear titles.

Someone said that 'too many sections cause confusion'. I disagree, the number isn't the real problem: it's all about  title clarity.
The titles of the sections should be unequivocal. Sections should not juxtapose and their name should set them apart without leaving room for interpretation A 'speculation' section would result in endless snarky, off-topic posts to move things there, discussions over what's speculation and what isn't etc.

Another example is the 'Facilities and Fleets (from pads to Mr. Stevens)' section that Chris proposed. IMO this is too long and unclear. Wouldn't 'SpaceX Infrastructure' be shorter and clearer?

Even ' BFR - Earth to Deep Space' should be shortened to 'SpaceX BFR' for the sake of clarity IMO. 'Earth to DS' doesn't really add anything after all.

Also: this is a forum, we are here for discussion, not just for the news. Speculation is part of the discussion, and if you don't like speculation threads you can just avoid them. I don't see why we should have apartheids just because some can't stand the sight of a 'BFR SSTO' thread in the BFR section. I mean you are not forced to click on it...
« Last Edit: 04/15/2018 09:07 pm by AbuSimbel »
Failure is not only an option, it's the only way to learn.
"Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the custody of fire" - Gustav Mahler

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 916
  • Likes Given: 374
I too vote against the speculation section, and to use clear titles.

Someone said that 'too many sections cause confusion'. I disagree, the number isn't the real problem: it's all about  title clarity.
The titles of the sections should be unequivocal. Sections should not juxtapose and their name should set them apart without leaving room for interpretation A 'speculation' section would result in endless snarky, off-topic posts to move things there, discussions over what's speculation and what isn't etc.

Another example is the 'Facilities and Fleets (from pads to Mr. Stevens)' section that Chris proposed. IMO this is too long and unclear. Wouldn't 'SpaceX Infrastructure' be shorter and clearer?

Even ' BFR - Earth to Deep Space' should be shortened to 'SpaceX BFR' for the sake of clarity IMO. 'Earth to DS' doesn't really add anything after all.

Also: this is a forum, we are here for discussion, not just for the news. Speculation is part of the discussion, and if you don't like speculation threads you can just avoid them. I don't see why we should have apartheids just because some can't stand the sight of a 'BFR SSTO' thread in the BFR section. I mean you are not forced to click on it...

Agree with all said.
As to not being forced to click on a thread, a "Hide Thread" function would clear up readability.
"It'll bang right out!"

Online Chris Bergin

Still thinking about this, but based on the two "speculation" threads we've had since, we're not going to have a speculation section here. Both threads were low quality to say the least.

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4339
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2578
  • Likes Given: 531

Another example is the 'Facilities and Fleets (from pads to Mr. Stevens)' section that Chris proposed. IMO this is too long and unclear. Wouldn't 'SpaceX Infrastructure' be shorter and clearer?


Disagree. "Facilities and Fleets" is quite clear.

By contrast,  "Infrastructure" does not obviously include ships, and people looking for info on the fleet may not think to look under "infrastructure." That would be confusing, to me at least.


Offline rosbif73

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 221
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 32
Disagree. "Facilities and Fleets" is quite clear.

By contrast,  "Infrastructure" does not obviously include ships, and people looking for info on the fleet may not think to look under "infrastructure." That would be confusing, to me at least.

Agree that infrastructure doesn't obviously include the recovery and support vessels. However, the way SpaceX is heading, "Fleets" could equally be misinterpreted as fleets of rockets.

"SpaceX Infrastructure (land and sea)" might clarify that, but lacks brevity. Any other ideas?

Online yokem55

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
  • Oregon (Ore-uh-gun dammit)
  • Liked: 339
  • Likes Given: 12
Disagree. "Facilities and Fleets" is quite clear.

By contrast,  "Infrastructure" does not obviously include ships, and people looking for info on the fleet may not think to look under "infrastructure." That would be confusing, to me at least.

Agree that infrastructure doesn't obviously include the recovery and support vessels. However, the way SpaceX is heading, "Fleets" could equally be misinterpreted as fleets of rockets.

"SpaceX Infrastructure (land and sea)" might clarify that, but lacks brevity. Any other ideas?
If "SpaceX Facilities and Fleets" was coupled with a "SpaceX Vehicles and Spacecraft" section, it would be pretty clear which covered which topic.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4301
  • US
  • Liked: 3831
  • Likes Given: 2189
If "SpaceX Facilities and Fleets" was coupled with a "SpaceX Vehicles and Spacecraft" section, it would be pretty clear which covered which topic.

Maybe if you changed it to "Launch Vehicles and Spacecraft"

Online Chris Bergin

So using this as a baseline:

SpaceX General.
SpaceX Missions.
SpaceX Facilities and Fleets.
SpaceX BFR - Earth to Deep Space.
SpaceX Megathreads.

--

Let's refine that - if needed - per the most recent posts about keeping clear sep between sections. We'll start thread moves next week, so we have a few more days to get this right (and getting it right from the start is best, as opposed to several further changes).
« Last Edit: 04/27/2018 02:18 pm by Chris Bergin »

Offline Rabidpanda

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
  • Liked: 119
  • Likes Given: 572
Is the Megathreads section meant to be an archive for old threads? If so, it might be useful to call it 'Megathreads Archive' or similar.

Online Chris Bergin

Is the Megathreads section meant to be an archive for old threads? If so, it might be useful to call it 'Megathreads Archive' or similar.

Yes, the goal of that was a relief valve for the General section, otherwise that would have become way too large, and also a good quick reference section. Such as searching terms.

Online Chris Bergin

Decided there are too many reuse-dedicated threads in that current section, so adding a new section, for Facilities and Fleets is a great solution to trimming down some of the other sections and having useful separation.

SpaceX General.
SpaceX Missions.
SpaceX Facilities and Fleets.
SpaceX Reusability
SpaceX BFR - Earth to Deep Space.
SpaceX Megathreads.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4301
  • US
  • Liked: 3831
  • Likes Given: 2189
Where will threads reside that are about setting up a SpaceX colony on Mars but aren't necessarily BFR focused?  Still in the BFR section?

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2395
  • California
  • Liked: 1933
  • Likes Given: 4875
Where will threads reside that are about setting up a SpaceX colony on Mars but aren't necessarily BFR focused?  Still in the BFR section?

Maybe Facilities & Fleets?  They are about speculating on future SpaceX facilities.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline Swoopert

SpaceX Reusability
First i is missing from the header in the actual section...call it my eye for detal ;)

Tags: